1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to general drywall texture application and to the area of matching and repair of spray on drywall textures. More particularly, the present invention relates to a rotating applicator for texturing.
2. The Prior Art
The most common type of texture application utilized in commercial and residential construction today and over the last 30 years is the spray on type. Spray guns coupled with compressors have been the apparatus of choice. They produce an assortment of speckled patterns that are applied primarily to drywall surfaces. Although fairly economical and popular, the application method is messy and the patterns produced are limited and tired. There is a need for something new. Additionally, the repairing of damaged areas that utilize this type of texture application has also been a problem. Present solutions are inadequate, all having serious flaws and limitations. There are presently three commercial approaches that address these problems.
Air guns coupled with compressors are the main means of texture application today. Air guns and compressors are used for both new surfaces and in the repair of damaged areas. For both applications, there are serious drawbacks. Air guns and compressors are expensive and due to their complexity, they usually require the use of a contractor. The compressors are large, very often requiring a truck to move them around. Long hoses are needed to supply the guns with compressed air. They are impractical for small jobs or your typical home-owner re-modeler. The use of high-pressure air is also a major issue. This creates significant over-spray and dust disturbance. Neatness is a very important factor, especially in the area of remodeling. To minimize the potential mess, significant area preparation is required along with cleanup time. This added time equals added expense. The type of textures that can be produced by air guns are limited. Spray guns can generate droplets of different diameters and density only. A speckled type pattern is the only pattern possible.
Aerosol cans with texture compound inside are also available. Aerosol cans are expensive, contain little material, deliver poor results, and cannot be re-used. They are practical for small area repair only.
Bazooka type mechanisms, such as in U.S. Pat. No. 3,188,295, are also used, forcing air and material thru a nozzle with the force of your arm acting on a piston. This type of application does not allow for a steady stream of material, resulting in uneven, hard to control patterns. They are not practical to cover larger areas in either a uniform or timely manner.
U.S. Pat. No. 2,865,325 (Leston et al.) shows a device capable of flinging material, but with fatal defects in its applicability to accomplish the task desired, the ability to produce modern spray on type texture patterns. In its shown configuration the controls, portability, and other modifications required are just not present. This device was never intended nor capable of applying any decorative patterns in anything but a limited way. “The Leston device was only practical in applying much more dense coatings. The title itself “Applicator For Splattering of Masses” points directly to this fact. The use of spray on modern type textures was not in use at the time the application for this invention was filed in November 1954.
FIG. 1 in Leston shows a mass of material in a bottom-mounted reservoir 12. With this lower position, serious problems arise. Accurately controlling the amount of dispensed material is not possible. As the bristles or tines are passed thru the reservoir medium they pick up an amount of substance controlled only by the shape of the tines and amount of material present in the reservoir. Adjusting the bristles or tines would not significantly address this problem. As the material is ejected from the device, the reservoir level changes. This directly impacts the amount of material present on the tines or bristles, and ultimately the density of the pattern emitted.
It is imperative to be able to accurately control medium flow in order to control the devices output. This inability directly impacts droplet size, pattern density and over all versatility. The ease of directing the dispensed medium with the Leston device is also in question. As a hand held device, comfort, stamina, and portability is severely limited. The handle 18, as seen in FIG. 1, is located in an awkward, off centered, and unsupported position. Since the device is an unsealed unit, being open at the front and back, tipping the device significantly in either direction would cause the material to spill. The tripod mount system, as shown in FIG. 7, would be the most viable way of using the device. As a result, moving the device around would be quite cumbersome in anything but a vacant room.
FIG. 1 in Leston shows a splatter plate 33a in a fixed position. The splatter plate is referred to as a flick plate in the present invention. This plate is neither adjustable nor removable. There are major advantages in the ability to do so. Different plates produce different results.
FIG. 1 in Leston also shows a rotating brush assembly 26. This item is also in a fixed position. The inability to remove this brush and replace it with brushes of different density and pattern is a major limitation of Leston and the rest of the prior art.
The Leston device is incapable of producing or directing the type of spray-on texture patterns needed to match or duplicate what is needed in the market place of today. The fact that this invention is not now commercially produced points directly to its flaws.